That's good advice, Ross.. I have put together a looped XMLHttpRequest script that seems to be working well. Against my Django server it can get 100 replies in about a second, so it appears theoretically at least to be able to responsive enough to handle a few per second. Your note about 28 in 2 seconds sounds very good. Looks like I'll go with that.
I was experimenting with a window.setTimeout as proposed by an earlier discussion, and that works well to manage timing, though I think I might want to impose any orchestrating delay from the server-side to ensure that clients don't mess with it and control resource loading themselves. Thx for the input :) -Ross (the other one). On Jun 28, 5:53 am, Ross Dakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, don't be afraid of a couple XMLHttpRequests. If you had > two or three per second, you could very well emulate a "real flow" of > data. > > According to YSlow, the Google Groups page on which I'm reading this > thread requires 28 HTTP requests (with empty cache), and it loaded in > 2.18 seconds. > > My point: it sounds like you're concerned with inefficiency (which is > good!), but a few requests per second is a fairly sparse traffic flow. > > Cheers, > Ross --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
